Re: IETF Process Evolution
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Sat, 17 September 2005 07:41 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGXK8-0005gi-8b; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:41:24 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EGXK6-0005gQ-Gp for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:41:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29811 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGXPF-0000gZ-SF for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:46:43 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j8H7fBE03760 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:41:11 +0300
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:41:11 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E1EGI1e-00038I-8N@newodin.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509171031160.3592@netcore.fi>
References: <E1EGI1e-00038I-8N@newodin.ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Subject: Re: IETF Process Evolution
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, IETF Chair wrote: > This note describes a method of starting the next phase of IETF > IETF process change, possibly including updating the change process > itself. FWIW, I think this approach makes sense. In all process WGs (or BOFs) I have participated (ipr, newtrk, icar, mpowr, ...), it either took a horribly long time to achieve a result (and the result was typically just clarifications, not rocket science), or the results didn't materialize before the energy was lost. The only semi-concluded effort, ipr, was set out with very specific goals ("don't make major changes, just clarify the current procedures. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, don't touch RAND") so it yielded some results after quite a bit of time, but as said, it doesn't seem even close to comparable to this effort (clarifications vs major changes). However, I'm slightly concerned (as has been heard from others) as to the scope of the process work design team. I fear the task the DT would take upon itself would be too big (or the [perceived] expectations of the community too big) so that getting results would be very challenging if not impossible. For example, the bullet point below seems to imply, "by the way, it would be nice if you could re-design the IETF process documents in a consistent manner". PESCI should concentrate on the "high order bits", not these kind of "clean-up activities". > Additional conditions for PESCI's work > > - a subsidiary goal is to end up with a clearly defined > and interlocked set of process documents, rather than > a patchwork of updates to existing documents -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF Process Evolution C. M. Heard
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Joel M. Halpern
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF Process Evolution John C Klensin
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Pekka Savola
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF Process Evolution JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Leslie Daigle
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: IETF Process Evolution Brian E Carpenter